SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2023
Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer.
Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials of targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy for liver cancer: a scoping review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- International validation of the Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer-Quality of Life (LRRC-QoL) patient reported outcome measure.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- A Prospective Observational Cohort Study Comparing High-Complexity Against Conventional Pelvic Exenteration Surgery.Cancers · 2025Article
- Postoperative venous thromboembolism after surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Pelvic Exenteration in Advanced, Recurrent or Synchronous Cancers-Last Resort or Therapeutic Option?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The empty pelvis syndrome: a core data set from the PelvEx collaborative.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe availability of high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is crucial to guiding shared decision-making in the context of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), where potential treatment benefits must be balanced against the impact of both the disease and treatment on PROs, such as quality of life. This review aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) currently being reported in LRRC and to appraise the methodological quality of studies using these measures.
methodsPubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched, including studies published up until 14
resultsThirty-five studies including 1914 patients with LRRC were identified. None of the studies included in the review met all eleven criteria for the quality of reporting of PROMs. Seventeen PROMs and two clinician-reported outcome measures were identified, none of which have been validated for use in patients with LRRC.
conclusionsNone of the PROMs which are currently being used to report PROs in LRRC have been validated for use in this cohort of patients. Future studies in this disease area should focus on utilising PROMs that have undergone a robust development process including patients with LRRC, to produce data which is high quality, accurate and relevant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.